Samson v. State, 4D01-2675.
| Decision Date | 10 September 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D01-2675.,4D01-2675. |
| Citation | 853 So.2d 1116 |
| Parties | Elizar SAMSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, Laurel R. Wiley and Marrett W. Hanna, Assistant Attorneys General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We have for review the pleas and sentences in this case. Elizar Samson ("Samson") argues that his nolo contendere pleas were improperly accepted because he was incompetent at the time. We agree and reverse.
Samson was charged with eight counts of robbery with a deadly weapon. He was then adjudicated incompetent to proceed and institutionalized for treatment. At a later hearing, he pled nolo contendere to the counts charged and was sentenced to thirty-one year concurrent sentences of imprisonment on all counts. Prior to entering these pleas, no hearing was held adjudicating Samson's legal status from incompetent to competent.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.210(a) provides:
A person accused of an offense or a violation of probation or community control who is mentally incompetent to proceed at any material stage of a criminal proceeding shall not be proceeded against while incompetent.
An individual adjudicated incompetent is presumed to remain incompetent until adjudicated restored to competence. Alexander v. State, 380 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (citing Corbin v. State, 129 Fla. 421, 176 So. 435 (1937)). Furthermore, "the legal status of a defendant cannot be adjudicated from incompetent to competent without a hearing." Id. at 1190. Contrary to the State's contention, the required hearing to determine whether Samson had been restored to competence did not occur. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.212 sets forth the required competency hearing procedures for determining whether a defendant previously adjudicated incompetent has been restored to competence. See Mora v. State, 814 So.2d 322, 333 (Fla.2002)
(indicating that where a defendant's competence is once questioned, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210, 3.211, and 3.212 apply if his competence is again questioned). These procedures include the calling of court-appointed expert witnesses designated under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.211, a determination of competence to proceed, and the entry of an order finding competence. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dortch v. State
...and sentence in both cases. He argues the trial court erred in failing to conduct a competency hearing, relying on Samson v. State , 853 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). There, we held "[a]n individual adjudicated incompetent is presumed to remain incompetent until [ ] restored to competence......
-
Young v. Florida
..."[a]n individual adjudicated incompetent is presumed to remain incompetent until adjudicated restored to competence." Samson v. State, 853 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citations omitted). Petitioner, however, does not show that he was adjudicated incompetent by a court prior to the 2003......
-
Dougherty v. State
...and the entry of an order finding competence.” Jones v. State, 125 So.3d 982, 983–84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Samson v. State, 853 So.2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ). The plain language of rule 3.212(a), however, does not require the calling of expert witnesses or any additional wit......
-
Molina v. State
...see Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.212(c)(5), the court must hold a competency hearing. Fla. R.Crim. P 3.212(c)(6); Jackson; Samson v. State, 853 So.2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). A proper hearing to determine whether competency has been restored requires "the calling of court-appointed expert witne......